The public (creationist) theme park, and his merchandising among other things, and siphoning off money to himself in small quantities to try and avoid notice. In addition, obstructing investigations into what he was doing.

He claimed he was only making $50,000/year to the IRS, when he was making deposits to multiple bank accounts that added up to over 2 million/year.

It had nothing to do with a church or donations. It had to do with him selling things and not reporting the money he made.

Our tax code is convoluted and worse than the bible.

Hovind's problem wasn't that he was selling bullshit. I like candy myself. I simply don't like it when someone says they will pay me and they dont.

Hovind's problem was the same as Madoff's. HE LIED AND DIDN'T KEEP HIS WORD.

I don't like our tax code. I don't mind higher taxes per sey, but I hate how it can potentially allow government to pry into your life, rich or poor, left or right.

I don't believe in tax exempt charities. If giving is done then it is giving. If you expect something in return, then it is a loan, not a gift.

Our government needs to be paid for. Police, fire, education , social security and military are all things we need. BUT our code is way too complicated and arbitrary.

Most non-profits are scams. Churches and charities only do the minimum amount necessary to be perceived as being humanitarian. They are for the profit of the founders and the people who run them.

THAT IS NOT THE POINT!

When anyone gives to a charity and claims it on their taxes, RELIGIOUS OR NOT, they EXPECT PART OF THE MONEY BACK. Sure it doesn't come from the people they give it to, BUT it is a loan that the tax payers give back to you even if in part. PROFIT has nothing to do with it.

If I loan you $100 and say, I want 50 back, IT IS STILL A LOAN. If I give it to you, then I should not expect anything back.

A loan can be given without profit. You simply pay back the amount without intrest, but it is still a loan. GOVERNMENT getting involved in charity IS A BAD IDEA! Charity is A GOOD IDEA.

But the problem becomes that it becomes payola for religious institutions who say "If you don't give our charities funding or those who donate to us tax exemption we will not vote for you"

It allows for lobying. It allows for pulpit politics.

WHEREAS if I give you money without any strings and don't expect it back there is no chance that I could hold it over your head or spy on you to make sure you qualify.

I don't care if you expect something back from your neighbor or your government, if you do IT IS NOT A GIFT! It is a loan.

I have never filed tax credits for anything I donated. To do so would be to ask for a pat on the back. Doing the right thing means doing it even when people are not patting you on the back.

Our current system is the same payola for charity as it is for Wall Street, and all it amounts to is legalized bribery.

Franklin once said, "When a religion is good, I conceive it will support itself; and when it does not support itself, and God does not take care to support it so that its professors are obliged to call for help of the civil power, 'tis a sign, I apprehend, of its being a bad one.
-- Benjamin Franklin, letter to Richard Price, October 9, 1780,

Did you file for tax credit? DON'T LIE!

If you did, then part of the money you WOULD have given to the government YOU kept by paying less.

It is the same as loaning someone $100 and only asking for 50 back.

Calling it a rebate STILL does not change that you loaned someone money so that YOU didn't have to give the government more money. The only difference is that the people you loaned it to are not the people giving you the rebate, the tax payers are.

You are caught up in word games.

When you give IT IS CALLED GIVING! And you do it WITHOUT expecting to pay the government less or expect to get back more because of something YOU GAVE. Anything else is a LOAN!

THE KEY IS THAT A GIFT comes without expectation. As soon as you ask for something in return, such as paying less on your taxes, or getting more on your tax return, you are shifting a financial burden to someone else. A GIFT is taking the full burden of the cost without passing it on to others.

Tax credits, be they for the rich or religious are nothing but legalized bribery.

*Ahem*

Brian? A charitable donation tax credit is a program offered by some governments as a form of incentive to encourage people to pay into charities. Yes, some of your money is used to provide this incentive; however, I imagine if you were asked whether or not you begrudge whatever small amount of money of yours is used to feed people your country has stolen so much from or to keep homeless people from becoming desperate, you'd probably say no?

Perhaps you question the need for the incentive? If that's the case, perhaps you'd be interested to know the ratio of people who actually contribute to charity in western countries: about 1 in 50 people (and that's being pretty generous). 

Furthermore, it is almost never the wealthiest income earners who donate to charity, so framing it as them extorting the system is just plain wrong. 

It would be nice if the world was filled with people who don't mind sharing what they have with others, but that's not what we have. We have a planet full of treasure-hoarding assholes like EXC and Jormungander who not only want the moon but want it to themselves. So, the government offers out little treats to see if they can get just a few more people to donate. 

I am sure he did. But he was also a politician and does not change that if he asked to pay less in taxes for his charity, he too would be shifting the cost onto others. I didn't say he wasn't a politician. I said that taking a tax break FOR ANY REASON cannot be called a gift. Because that means YOU asking for it means you expect something MEANING A BREAK.

Wrong about what? That giving means not expecting anything back. Dont call it a gift then.

No, charities are GIFTS. If something is a gift you dont ask for a pat on the back, or a break, or money back.

"Bribery" is "if you do this for me, I will vote for you". If you allow me to pay less on my taxes I will vote for you. I am not saying Ben didn't do that. I am saying don't lie about what you are doing.

You don't file at the same rate Wall Mart or NYC Archdiocese does so of course your filings don't matter. You assume that powerful people dont use this tax scam to keep power.

Why do you think big companies donate to charity? Not because they care about the exploding pay gap. They do it because it is good PR. If they really cared they wouldn't ask for a tax break. Same with megga churches.

Well besides all the fake charities there are,

Let's look at the 'real' charities:

Local Chapters Kept 9/11 Money Instead Of Sending It In For Victims

49 Charged In Katrina Fraud Scam

Al Qaeda Skimming Charity Money

http://maguireinc.typepad.com/blog/united_way/

They have huge overheads and the deceive people about their overhead and administrative costs.

You have to understand all humans are selfish hedonist creatures, so the person donating usually doesn't care too much about how it's spent. They just want to feel good about giving. Then they person taking the charity money can always justify skimming the money, because morals are always relative.

It's a comical story, actually.

Neither Hovind nor his employees actually considered 'Creation Science Evangelism' to be a church, and Hovind never bothered to attempt to get tax exemption status for it. Instead, he simply puchased the services of a snake oil salesman named Glen Stoll, and assumed he could beat the tax system with loopholes.

What's funnier (well, funnier if you dislike 'Dr' Hovind) is that he would not have likely had to do any time in prison at all if he could've just controlled himself for a few moments, admitted his mistake and paid the tax debts he owed. But no, of course not. His ego being what it is, he instead opted the batshit insane route, claiming (among other things):

 - The IRS was 'harassing' him

 - He was not a citizen of the United States

 - God owned all of his assets, not him.

 - He had no employees; they were all 'missionaries' who did not have salaries (bald-faced lie)

 - He could not speak English (a facepalmingly bad attempt at avoiding signing documents / acknowledging charges)

This mess resulted in a full investigation of Hovind's properties and holdings, which further revealed that he had no permits or licenses of any sort for any of his businesses. Oops.

Investigators found, among other things, obvious signs of destruction of financial records, large stockpiles of weapons and ammunition, large bundles of cash, evidence that Hovind had been smurfing employee payments (I have no idea what that even means, but it sounds hilariously bad) and, of course, a large body of material suggesting that Hovind was engaged in sedition.

Frankly, the tax evasion charges were going way easy on the man. Considering how bad he made himself look and what incriminating evidence was turned up against him, he could've been put away for much longer.

    Actually Hovind's totally innocent.  Nevertheless it was an atheist conspiracy to use sham accusations and shut Hovind up once and for all.  His scientific claims were so utterly convincing that he was beginning to undermine mainstream theories about the origin of the universe.  If he was allowed to continue he would have likely caused a mass defection among scientists to the Creation Science camp. He had to be stopped by any means possible.

   That's our dirty secret, but now you know.